Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (8) TMI 1531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terms of Section 6 of the Act, having been received from the Income Tax Authorities, there was reason to believe that conditions existed for forfeiture of properties. It is well established that existence of materials is a condition precedent for forming a reason to believe , but, it is not open for the court to go into the question of sufficiency of materials - In the present case, if we see the notice, which gives the fact for reason to believe , that Bharat Prasad and Shyam Babu had been detained under COFEPOSA and that a report about unexplained stocks of steel utensils had been received from the Income Tax Department. There was neither any inquiry nor any report nor any material suggested that the properties which were sought to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eferred to as the SAFEMA ). 2. We have heard at length the parties. The facts are within a narrow compass. Late Mewalal was a businessman at Patna, had four sons namely, Ram, Lakshman, Bharat Prasad and Shyam Babu. After the death of Mewalal, the four brothers continued the business as a H.U.F. Firm. In 1962, there was a family partition. Bharat Prasad and Shyambabu then carried on businesses under the name and style of Stainless Steel House and other Shyam Steel House, one in Bakarganj, Patna and other in Muradpur. The business was exclusively of Steel utensils. 3. Till 1968, there was no restrictions of import of steel or steel utensils from Nepal under Indo-Nepal Treaty, whereas, there was no qualitative or quantitative excessive .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssfully their preventive detention up to the Apex Court. Their contentions were rejected in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.D.M. Jabalpur Vs. B. Shukla since reported in AIR 1976 SC 1207 = (1976) 2 SCC 521. 6. Now, a notice was issued not only to the two brothers, but their wives as well under the SAFEMA . In relation to the two ladies i.e. Kamla Devi and Lilawati Devi apart from their cash credits appearing in the ledger of their husbands business, notices were issued in respect of certain immovable property which two of them were holding jointly. The two being relatives as two wives of Bharat Prasad and Shyam Babu who were detained under the COFEPOSA, the authorities got jurisdiction under SAFEMA to proceed ag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der Section 6 of the SAFEMA itself, it is noticed that report in terms of Section 6 of the Act, having been received from the Income Tax Authorities, there was reason to believe that conditions existed for forfeiture of properties. 11. In our view, it is well established that existence of materials is a condition precedent for forming a reason to believe , but, it is not open for the court to go into the question of sufficiency of materials. So far as the materials are concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Aslam Mohammad Merchant Vs. Competent Authority since reported in (2008) 14 SCC 186, has held that there has to be a preliminary inquiry which would furnish grounds for reason to believe . The preliminary inquiry has to lead t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not have been challenged in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.D.M. Jabalpur (supra), the fundamental rights including the rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 had been suspended. Therefore, the challenge to the detention under COFEPOSA was not entertained right up to Supreme Court. In this situation, merely to create jurisdiction, reference to COFEPOSA, the detention would not be a safe endeavour. The more drastic the provisions the stricter the scrutiny. 14. The other reason why we are inclined to interfere is that the competent authority does not dispute that initially A-property was purchased, in the year 1968, in the name of Lilawati Devi, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in 1967, she sold it for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates